Ex Parte DoroshenkoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201813777997 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/777,997 02/26/2013 Sergii Doroshenko 91230 7590 06/04/2018 Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. 2001 ROSS A VENUE SUITE 900 Dallas, TX 75201 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 079894.5688 9981 EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIM T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ptomaill@bakerbotts.com ptomail2@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SERGI! DOROSHENKO Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Non-final Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellant the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. (App. Br. 3). Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention relates to a data search system handling an incremental data search (Spec. ,r 1). Exemplary claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 11 under appeal read as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a first search query from a user; obtaining a plurality of first search results in response to the first search query from an index server; determining whether the plurality of first search results are a substantially exhausted list of results for the first search query; and caching the plurality of first search results in a cache storage if the plurality of first search results are the substantially exhausted list of results for the first search query. 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further compnsmg: receiving a second search query from the user; determining whether the second search query is a refined query of the first search query; and searching the first search results in response to the first search query cached in the cache storage for at least one second search result in response to the second search query, wherein the at least one second search result is a subset of the cached plurality of first search results. 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining whether the plurality of first search results are a substantially exhausted list of results for the first search query further includes: determining whether a number of the first search results is less than or equal to a predetermined proportion of a number of results requested from the index server. 2 Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the prefix hashes are calculated based on symbolic expressions for the prefix queries, and the hash of the first search query is calculated based on a symbolic expression for the first search query. 11. A method for incremental search comprising: receiving a plurality of initial keystrokes from a user device; obtaining, from an index server, a plurality of first search results based on a first search query including the initial keystrokes; caching the plurality of first search results in a cache storage; receiving one or more additional keystrokes from the user device; generating one or more second search results by searching the first search results in the cache storage based on a second search query including the initial keystrokes and additional keystrokes; and transmitting the second search results to the user device in real time. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS Claims 1-5 and 9-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gutt et al. (US 8,370,329 B2; issued Feb. 5, 2013) ("Gutt") and Lee et al. (US 2011/0320441 Al; published Dec. 29, 2011) ("Lee"). Claims 11-15, 17-18, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as anticipated by Gutt. 3 Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 Claims 6-7, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gutt and Ko et al. (US 2012/0166182 Al; published June 28, 2012) ("Ko"). Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gutt and Hinkle et al. (US 2008/0133864 Al; published June 5, 2008) ("Hinkle"). PRINCIPLES OF LAW Claim Construction A claim under examination is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the underlying specification. See In re American Acad. of Science Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the absence of an express definition of a claim term in the specification or a clear disclaimer of scope, the claim term is interpreted as broadly as the ordinary usage of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art would permit. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Obviousness The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is "whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art." Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the 4 Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). ANALYSIS Independent Claim 1 Appellant contends the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest "determining whether the plurality of first search results are a substantially exhausted list of results for the first search query" and "caching the plurality of first search results in a cache storage if the plurality of first search results are the substantially exhausted list of results for the first search query," as recited in claim 1 (see App. Br. 6-7). More specifically, Appellant argues Lee merely describes generating an exhaustive list of topics associated with a set of search results, and fails to teach or suggest a substantially exhausted list of results for a search query, much less determining whether a plurality of search results are a substantially exhausted list of results for the search query (see id.; see also Reply Br. 2). Appellant further argues the Office Action acknowledges Gutt fails to teach or suggest determining whether a plurality of search results are a substantially exhausted list of results for a search query, and thus, Gutt also fails to teach or suggest caching the plurality of search results in a cache storage if the plurality of search results are the substantially exhausted list of results for the search query (see App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3--4). This contention is not persuasive of Examiner error. Claim 1 does not define, or otherwise limit, the term "substantially exhausted list of results." Appellant's Specification discloses that, in an example embodiment, a 5 Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 "substantially exhausted list of results" is a list of search results where a number of search results "is less than or equal to a predetermined proportion of a number of results requested from [an] index server" (Spec. ,r 65). However, we decline to import a limitation described in Appellant's Specification that is not recited in the claim. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim."). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a "substantially exhausted list of results" encompasses any set of search results, including the set of search results disclosed in Lee (see e.g., Lee ,r 33). Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the claimed "substantially exhausted list of results" was limited to a set of search results where a number of search results is less than or equal to a predetermined proportion of a number of results requested from [a] index server, Appellant's contention still does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. This is because "a predetermined proportion" is not limited to a specific proportion and can be any proportion, including a one-to-one proportion. That is, a "substantially exhausted list of results" can simply be the original set of search results. In other words, a "substantially exhausted list of results" is not limited to a set of search results that is smaller than an original set of results. Thus, even under this alternate interpretation of "substantially exhausted list of results," the claimed "determining whether [a] plurality of first search results are a substantially exhausted list of results" reads on Lee, as Lee discloses identifying an original set of search results and comparing 6 Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 topics associated with the original set of results with interested topics indicated by a user's social profile (see e.g., Lee ,r 33). Further, the Examiner did not rely solely on Lee as teaching or suggesting "caching the plurality of first search results in a cache storage if the plurality of first search results are the substantially exhausted list of results for the first search query," as recited in claim 1. Instead, the Examiner relied upon the combination of Gutt and Lee as teaching the aforementioned element of claim 1 (see Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Gutt 2:55- 3:45, 9:23-50; Lee ,r 33)). Appellant's argument does not address the Examiner's finding that Gutt teaches storing a user's search history, including previously selected search results, and thus, is not persuasive. 2 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Gutt and Lee teaches or suggests the aforementioned elements of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 2 Appellant contends the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest "searching the first search results in response to the first search query cached in the cache storage for at least one second search result in response to the second search query, wherein the at least one second search result is a subset of the cached plurality of first search results," as recited in claim 2 (see App. Br. 7-9). More specifically, Appellant argues Gutt merely describes providing suggested search queries and results as a user 2 Although not necessary to our analysis and decision, we also note that Koh teaches caching predicted search results locally at a client device (see Koh ,I 76). 7 Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 incrementally enters characters of a search query, where a new search is merely performed in response to a new search query, and where previous search results are disregarded (see App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4--5). Thus, as argued by Appellant, Gutt fails to teach or suggest searching a previous set of search results for satisfying the new search query (see App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4--5). We are not persuaded by Appellant's contention. We agree with the Examiner that Gutt teaches incrementally adding keystrokes to a search query, where search results are continually returned as keystrokes are incrementally added (see Final Act. 4 (citing Gutt 16:43-17: 12)). Consistent with the Examiner's findings, Gutt teaches that each subsequent set of search results is a subset of a previous set of search results, as the search results included within each subsequent set of search results become more relevant to the search query as keystrokes are incrementally added to the search query (see Ans. 5-7) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Gutt teaches or suggests searching a previous set of search results for at least one search result this is a subset of the previous set of search results. 3 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Gutt and Lee teaches or suggests the aforementioned elements of claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 3 Although not necessary to our analysis and decision, we also note that Koh teaches searching a set of predicted search results cached at a client device for at least one predicted result as keystrokes are incrementally added to a search query, where the at least one predicted result is a subset of the original set of predicted search results (see Koh ,r,r 75-76). 8 Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 Claim 5 Appellant contends the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest "determining whether a number of the first search results is less than or equal to a predetermined proportion of a number of results requested from the index server," as recited in claim 5 (see App. Br. 9-10). More specifically, Appellant argues Gutt merely describes presenting a search result to a user if the search result meets a predetermined threshold, which is based on a number of times the user has selected the search result (see App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 5---6). As argued by Appellant, such a predetermined threshold neither teaches nor suggests a predetermined portion of a number of results requested from an index server (see App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 6). Claim 5 depends upon claim 1. Consistent with the aforementioned embodiment disclosed in Appellant's Specification (see Spec. ,r 65), claim 5 limits the claimed "determining whether [a] plurality of first search results are a substantially exhausted list of results" to "determining whether a number of the first search results is less than or equal to a predetermined proportion of a number of results requested from [a] index server." As previously discussed, "a predetermined proportion" can be any proportion, including a one-to-one proportion, and thus, a "substantially exhausted list of results" can simply be an original set of search results. Thus, Appellant's contention is not persuasive of Examiner error for reasons similar to the reasons previously discussed regarding claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 9 Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 Claim 7 Appellant contends the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest "wherein the prefix hashes are calculated based on symbolic expressions for the prefix queries, and the hash of the first search query is calculated based on a symbolic expression for the first search query," as recited in claim 7 (see App. Br. 10). More specifically, as argued by Appellant, even assuming arguendo that Ko teaches generating a fingerprint for a prefix by applying a hash function to the prefix and subsequently mapping the fingerprint to a "chunked" query completion table, the Office Action has failed to prove that the prefix or hash function is calculated based on a symbolic expression for a prefix query (see id.; see also Reply Br. 6). We are persuaded by Appellant's contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7. Appellant's Specification discloses that a "symbolic expression" is defined as a "notation for nested list data (i.e., tree-structured data)" (Spec. ,r 68). The Examiner's analysis fails to persuasively establish that Ko' s application of a hash function to a prefix is calculated based on a symbolic expression (i.e., tree-structured data or other notation for nested list data), as recited in the claim. Therefore, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent Claims 11 and 17 Appellant contends the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest "generating one or more second search results by searching the first search results in the cache storage based on a second search query including the initial keystrokes and additional keystrokes," as recited in claims 11 and 17 (see App. Br. 11 ). More specifically, Appellant argues the 10 Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 aforementioned element of claims 11 and 1 7 is similar to "searching the first search results in response to the first search query cached in the cache storage for at least one second search result in response to the second search query, wherein the at least one second search result is a subset of the cached plurality of first search results," as recited in claim 2 (see id.; see also Reply Br. 6). Therefore, as argued by Appellant, for the reasons previously argued with respect to claim 2, independent claims 11 and 17 are patentable over the cited references (see App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 6). Appellant concedes that the aforementioned element of claims 11 and 17 is similar to the aforementioned element of claim 2. Therefore, Appellant's contention is not persuasive for reasons similar to the reasons previously discussed regarding claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Remaining Claims No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent claims (see App. Br. 6-11 ). We therefore sustain their rejections for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 1 7. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 11-15, 17-18, and 20- 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-10, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 11 Appeal2018-000953 Application 13/777,997 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation